I can't believe it. These men who are sniping at Kerry saying that he didn't earn some of his medals strike me as somewhat pathetic.
If you ask me, I think they are just upset at the fact that John Kerry came home and became and anti-war activist.
And I can't believe that George W. Bush would stoop to such tactics considering he was comfy stateside in the Air National Guard no less.
Even if he didn't really earn some Purple Hearts doesn't change the fact that he was THERE in the boats in the Mekong trading fire with Charlie.
Besides, a real warrior wouldn't really give a damn about his medals. Just the knowledge that he did what he had to do.

What I can't believe is how tenaciously the legitimate media has latched onto a totally manufactured story worthy only of the tabloids. An interesting op-ed about how this ugliness is being perpetuated ran in the LA Times today.

You Can Report, but We Will Decide

The conservative media's handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias.
By Ben Wasserstein
Ben Wasserstein is a writer in New York.

August 24, 2004

Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of John Kerry's major accusers among the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, contradicted Thurlow's version of events and confirmed Kerry's. At the very least, this cast severe doubt on the charge that Kerry fabricated the events that earned him one of his Vietnam War medals.

The conservative media had been pushing the fabrication story energetically. How did it deal with this new evidence undermining it? As it turns out, at almost every turn it soft-pedaled the new evidence or outright ignored it, showing its bias throughout.

On March 13, 1969, Kerry commanded one of five Navy Swift boats in a raid up the Bay Hap River and won a Bronze Star for actions under enemy fire. Thurlow commanded one of the other boats, and he has claimed in constant media rounds that there was no enemy fire. But, as the Post reported, Thurlow also won a Bronze Star that day, and the citation that accompanied it referred to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units."

Thurlow's current story casts doubt on his own Bronze Star as much as Kerry's. Thurlow's explanation is that his citation's record of the events must have been based on Kerry's and that the information must have been provided by Kerry himself. There is an "after-action report" that Thurlow and John E. O'Neill, coauthor of the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command," refer to as "Kerry's report" despite the fact that it bears the initials KJW. (Later news stories have pointed out that Thurlow's Bronze Star citation refers to a witness to the enemy fire  Thurlow's crewmate, Robert Lambert  and that the KJW initials are also on reports about events Kerry was not involved in.)

No one has so far challenged the Washington Post's facts. Not that you'd know that if you were watching or listening to or reading conservative media outlets. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post ran Thurlow's charge that Kerry lied to get his medal. On Friday, the day after the Washington Post story poked a hole in that contention, the New York Post ran a teeny story focusing only on Kerry's decision to counterattack against a "tough anti-Kerry TV ad." The Wall Street Journal editorial page and its website, OpinionJournal, also said nothing about the new evidence.
...​

I can't believe it. These men who are sniping at Kerry saying that he didn't earn some of his medals strike me as somewhat pathetic.
If you ask me, I think they are just upset at the fact that John Kerry came home and became and anti-war activist.
And I can't believe that George W. Bush would stoop to such tactics considering he was comfy stateside in the Air National Guard no less.
Even if he didn't really earn some Purple Hearts doesn't change the fact that he was THERE in the boats in the Mekong trading fire with Charlie.
Besides, a real warrior wouldn't really give a damn about his medals. Just the knowledge that he did what he had to do.

Click to expand...

It is an issue because he and he alone is making it an issue. It was his decision to run on a vietnam war platform and not his senate record, so you reap what you sow.

Kerry has promised many times to stick it to the rich man as soon as he can, and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

Doubtful many of them are going to sit still and take that sort of threat from a potential leader without fighting back.

---

Quite cheap insurance for a group of rich people to spend some money now and sling some mud, and attempt to avoid any tax increases.

Click to expand...

Then why is it that he voted to raise the gas tax 8 times, raise taxes on senior citizens I think over 10 times, raise other taxes on middle income people over 30 times while he was in the senate? If he was against raising taxes on the middle income then why doesn't his vote reflect that?

"there is what Kerry says he will do, then there is what he really did."

Here is the be all and end all of the Swift Boat bull**** and why it's happening:

John Kerry is a ****ing war hero, man. He saved people's lives. He was wounded repeatedly and shot at frequently. He served two tours in Vietnam. No one has questioned these facts in the past 30 years.

Bush is a ****ing *****. He got into the Air National Guard ahead of better, more qualified men who'd scored higher and then checked the box to opt out of volunteering for overseas service. Then he was trained in an aircraft that was being phased out of use in Viet Nam.

Republicans have "claimed" the military as their own. The above disparity in actual service in (as opposed to lip service to) the military is at odds with their "claim."

Let's recap:
Kerry = war hero
Bush = *****

of course they'll do anything to try to level the playing field!
Unless you cheat, there is no contest!

Here is the be all and end all of the Swift Boat bull**** and why it's happening:

John Kerry is a ****ing war hero, man. He saved people's lives. He was wounded repeatedly and shot at frequently. He served two tours in Vietnam. No one has questioned these facts in the past 30 years.

It is an issue because he and he alone is making it an issue. It was his decision to run on a vietnam war platform and not his senate record, so you reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

No, this attack has been in the works at least since it became obvious that Kerry was going to be the likely nominee. This is Karl Rove's, George Bush's, and Lee Atwater's modus operandi from 1988-2002. There is nothing surprising in this kind of slime machine from any of them, and it certainly would have happened regardless of what use Kerry made of his heroic service. From Willie Horton through "Manchurian Candidate" insinuations and now with the "Swift Boat" liars it is all a gameplan written from the same shameless authors.

As to Kerry's decision to highlight his service, he did so because it is in stark contrast to the men of this administration who ran from service in Vietnam and are just too eager to swagger about in jump suits and false macho poses shouting "bring it on" while other people's children die to make them look tough. Sounds like a pretty good idea to expose Bush's lies and phony rhetoric.

I'm of the opinion that Lincoln was right - you can't fool all of the people all of the time. This is going to come back to haunt the Bush campaign.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.